Kuns2493, OuHet/812
Predictions on mass of Higgs portal scalar dark matter
from Higgs inflation and flat potential
Abstract
We consider the Higgs portal scalar model as the minimal extension of the Standard Model (SM) to incorporate the dark matter. We analyze this model by using the twoloop renormalization group equations. We find that the dark matter mass is bounded to be lighter than 1000 GeV within the framework that we have proposed earlier, where the Higgs inflation occurs above the SM cutoff , thanks to the fact that the Higgs potential becomes much smaller than its typical value in the SM: . We can further fix the dark matter mass to be if we impose that the cutoff is at the string scale and that the Higgs potential becomes flat around , as is required by the multiple point principle or by the Higgs inflation at the critical point. This prediction is testable by the dark matter detection experiments in the near future. In this framework, the dark matter and top quark masses are strongly correlated, which is also testable.
1 Introduction and summary
Recent discovery of the Higgs boson [1, 2] determines all the parameters of the Standard Model (SM) except for the neutrino sector. Since we have seen nothing beyond the SM at the Large Hadron Collider so far, it becomes more important to consider a scenario where SM is not much altered up to a very high scale such as the string (Planck) scale, around () GeV.
If we extrapolate the obtained SM parameters toward this scale assuming no new physics, we find a curious situation that both the Higgs self coupling and its beta function become very small [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], as well as the bare Higgs mass [8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14]; see also Ref. [15] for the earlier twoloop computation of .
This fact may give us a hint for a deeper understanding of the Planck scale physics, and is very interesting. So far, there are several proposals of the physics behind this fact: the multiple point principle (MPP) [16, 17, 18], the asymptotic safety [19], the scale invariance [20, 21, 22, 23], the maximum entropy principle [24, 25, 26, 27, 28], the hidden duality and symmetry [29, 30], etc. There are also bottomup approaches to extend the SM to realize such a structure at high scales [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. The flat potential, namely the vanishing quartic coupling around the string scale, is interesting not only theoretically but also phenomenologically.
Recently, the authors have pointed out the possibility that this flat potential can be used for the cosmic inflation [41]. More concrete model can be found in Refs. [42, 43], where the inflation scale is sufficiently large to explain the recently observed Bmode polarization, i.e. the large tensortoscalar ratio, by the BICEP2 experiment [44]. See also Refs. [45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64].
However, it is certain that we need to extend the SM since it does not contain a dark matter (DM). It is probable that Nature chooses minimal extension among many candidate models since it has not shown us any symptom of new physics at the Large Hadron Collider so far. One of the most minimal models is the gauge singlet scalar model with the symmetry [65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 36]. This model is well studied so that the relation between the mass of the DM and its coupling to the Higgs is constrained to yield the correct thermal abundance of the DM; the bounds from the collider and (in)direct detection experiments are also examined; see Ref. [72] for the latest analysis.
In this paper, we study the modification of the running of the SM parameters in this model. Particularly, we examine the running of the Higgs quartic coupling to check its consistency with the Higgs inflation above the SM cutoff [41].^{1}^{1}1 One may think of the possibility of using this singlet dark matter as the inflaton. However, its quartic coupling does not become small in the minimal model since it does not have a Yukawa coupling. Therefore we do not consider the possibility of using the scalar dark matter as the inflaton. It may be interesting to pursue such a possibility in the model where the Higgs portal scalar has a Yukawa coupling to extra fermion; see e.g. Ref. [73] and references therein.
We show that the DM mass must be smaller than 1000 GeV in order for the SM Higgs potential to be smaller than the inflation energy all the way up to the string scale GeV. It is interesting that the allowed region is testable in future direct detection experiments [72].
We further get the DM mass if we impose the flatness of the Higgs potential around the string scale , as is expected from the MPP or is required in the Higgs inflation at the critical point [41, 43].
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we review the scalar model and its allowed region of the parameter space. In Section 3, we briefly explain the flat potential Higgs inflation, and its constraint on the parameter space. We will see that the DM mass is strongly constrained. In Section 4, we conclude this paper.
2 scalar model
We add a gauge singlet real scalar to the SM. We further impose the symmetry under which the SM fields are even and is odd. This assignment prohibits the decay of into the SM particles, making it stable. The Lagrangian is:
(1) 
Let us first see the behavior of as the DM. The mass eigenvalue is
(2) 
where GeV is the Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV). The singlet takes part in the thermal bath of the SM sector through the coupling to the Higgs. After this interaction is frozen out, the abundance of is fixed. Therefore, the abundance solely depends on the DM mass and the coupling , and is independent of the self coupling .
For ( GeV), the condition for the correct thermal abundance is [72]
(3) 
which is roughly . On the other hand, the light DM is constrained from the invisible decay width of the Higgs at the 95% C.L. [72]:
(4) 
The direct detection bound from XENON100 (2012) leaves two allowed regions within 90% C.L. [72]:
(5) 
Next we discuss how the existence of affects the renormalization group (RG) running of the SM parameters. For simplicity, we employ the oneloop beta functions. Since is gauge singlet and does not have a Yukawa coupling to the SM fermions at the oneloop level, it does not affect the beta function of the gauge and Yukawa couplings, whereas modifying the running of the Higgs quartic coupling via the coupling . As the result, we get
(6) 
where . Similarly, we obtain the modification to the bare Higgs mass:
(7) 
where
(8) 
with the integral being over the Euclidean four momenta.
The running of the new parameters and are
(9) 
and the bare mass of becomes
(10) 
In this paper, we consider the case since we do not want to have a VEV for . For a mildly small value of and , the top Yukawa contribution dominates in the running of , and hence monotonically increases with the renormalization scale. Since has only quartic couplings of the form and , the coupling also increases monotonically.
Here, we use the twoloop RGEs summarized in Appendix A. The initial condition for the SM parameters follow from Ref. [10]:^{2}^{2}2 The latest combined result for the top quark mass is [74]. In this paper, we use the capital letter for the top quark mass to indicate that it is the pole mass. Note that there can be a discrepancy between the pole mass and the one measured at the hadron colliders [74]; see e.g. Refs. [6, 12]. The latter is obtained as an invariant mass of the color singlet final states, whereas the former is a pole of a colored quark. At the hadron colliders, the observed pair is dominantly color octet, and there may be discrepancy of order 1–2 GeV caused by drawing extra lines in the Feynman diagram to make the singlet final states. We thank Yukinari Sumino on this point. See also Ref. [75]. (This footnote is shared with the version 2 of Ref. [42] to appear.)
(11)  
(12)  
(13)  
(14)  
(15) 
On the other hand, we can freely choose the parameters for . Hereafter, we put subscript 0 on the parameters at the top mass scale , and we treat and as free input parameters. Though the DM mass is different from the top mass, we neglect this small threshold correction and use the RGEs shown in Appendix A from .
The parameters are not totally free but bounded by the perturbativity and stability of the theory:

For perturbativity, it is required that and cannot be too large up to the ultraviolet cutoff scale of the model. In this paper, we take this cutoff to be the typical string scale GeV. In Fig. 1, we have shown the region where both and are smaller than unity. In this figure, the left of the two solid black lines corresponds to the weak coupling region. This leads to the constraint:
(16) 
Next let us move on to the stability bound. The parameter does not change its sign through the RG running; monotonically increases; if , this sector does not lead to an instability. Therefore, the instability bound is simply that keeps to be positive up to the cutoff scale . We have plotted this bound in the vs plane in the left of Fig. 2. We see that stability is recovered by introducing of 0 to 0.3 depending on the top quark pole mass . In the right of Fig. 2, we plot for the case where takes its minimum value 0 around .
Let us examine how the fact that the bare Higgs mass becomes zero at the high scale is affected by inclusion of the extra scalar. At oneloop level, the bare Higgs mass becomes:
(17) 
where the running couplings are evaluated at the cutoff scale . The term is the biggest for a low cutoff scale, whereas the gauge couplings and dominate over for a larger cutoff scale; the sign is altered at an intermediate scale, where the bare mass becomes zero. In Fig. 3, we plot the contour for in the vs plane.
On the other hand, the bare mass for the newly added DM becomes
(18) 
This is always negative and does not become zero for any cutoff scale.
The bare masses become important when the temperature of the universe becomes close to . The Hubble constant during the inflation gives the temperature of the de Sitter vacuum. At lower energies, the effective potential is given by the renormalized mass rather than the bare one, see e.g. Appendix B of Ref. [41]. Therefore these bare masses are irrelevant if is much larger than the Hubble scale.
3 Higgs inflation constraint
We discuss the constraint on the DM mass from the Higgs inflation above cutoff that we have proposed in Ref. [41].
3.1 Constraint from flat potential Higgs inflation
In this scenario, we focus on the fact that the SM Higgs potential becomes flat, namely the quartic coupling and its beta function becomes small, at high scales. The RG improved Higgs potential is
(19) 
where we have chosen the renormalization scale for the running coupling in order to minimize the loop correction.
We can have a saddle point of this potential by tuning , but this point cannot solely explain the small scalar perturbation; see e.g. Appendix A of Ref. [41]. In the Higgs inflation scenario we proposed earlier [41], we assume that the Higgs potential becomes flat above the cutoff scale of the SM, leading to the inflation. We do not know the shape of the potential above the cutoff scale, and there is a good chance that Nature realizes this scenario. Since the prediction of the inflation depends on the physics beyond the cutoff scale, one may think that this is too arbitrary. However, there are two constraints in order to achieve this scenario [41]:^{3}^{3}3 See Appendix B for the possible potential above .

The detection of the scalar and tensor perturbation gives the upper bound on the value of the potential:
(20) where we have used the BICEP2 bound on the tensortoscalar ratio, [44].

The monotonicity bound requires that the Higgs potential is monotonically increasing up to the cutoff :
(21) This is required in order to avoid the socalled graceful exit problem in the end of the inflation [41]. One may consider a possibility that there appears another positive minimum below , and goes over the barrier between this minimum and the electroweak one. As is stated in footnote 4, such a parameter region is narrow in the  plane, and we neglect it; see e.g. Fig. 1 in Ref. [42].
We plot these two bound in the case of the SM in Fig. 4.^{4}^{4}4 Parametrically the monotonicity and the stability ( for ) give almost identical results in the vs plane.
We note that in this scenario of the Higgs inflation above cutoff , there is a lower bound on the tensortoscalar ratio : In the slow roll approximation, . The magnitude of the scalar perturbation is fixed to be . The potential height during the inflation should be larger than the potential height at the cutoff: . In particular, we get
(22) 
for [41].
3.2 Dark matter mass prediction
One of the most likely cutoffs is the string scale GeV. The typical height of the potential is then , which leads to too large tensortoscalar ratio to fit the observed cosmic microwave background spectrum. However, becomes small around for a range of , and we can evade this bounds. To repeat, for the Higgs inflation above the cutoff, it is important that the discovered Higgs mass leads to very small at high scales in the SM and in its extensions.
Let us show that the DM mass is strongly constrained from the conditions explained in Sec. 3.1. In the left (right) of Fig. 5, we plot the excluded regions in the vs plane for the cutoff scale GeV and for (0.6). We see that the resultant constraint is and . By using Eq. (3), this allowed region for translates to the allowed region for the DM mass shown in Fig. 6:
(23) 
In Fig. 6, we can see that there is a strong correlation between the top and DM masses. The relation between and is rather complicated for [72], and we show the region where in Fig. 6.
The MPP [16, 17, 18] and the Higgs inflation at the critical point [42, 43] both requires the flatness of the SM potential: around .^{5}^{5}5 With the MPP, we impose , while for the Higgs inflation at the critical point, we need When we impose this flatness condition, the coupling , the DM mass , and the top mass are completely fixed as functions of :
(24)  
(25)  
(26) 
where the lower and upper ends correspond to the parameter choice and 0.6, respectively. Here we have chosen ; the result is insensitive to the Higgs mass compared to the top mass. In Fig. 7, we plot , , and as functions of ; again the lower and upper ends correspond to the parameter choice and 0.6, respectively.
To be specific, we quote the numbers for the spin independent cross section for the DMnucleon scattering [72]:
(27) 
where we have put Eq. (3) in the last step.
Both of the DM mass predictions (23) and (25) with the cross section (27) are well within the reach of the future DM detection experiments such as XENON1T [76] and LUX [77]. This scenario can also be tested by the strong correlation between the DM and top masses as shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 8.
From Fig. 7, we see that we cannot get a flat potential for . This is because the larger the is, the smaller the becomes. is the SM limit. In the SM, the scale of the flat potential, obtained by tuning , is . When the DM decouples from the Higgs, it becomes impossible to raise the Higgs potential against the top Yukawa contribution.
If one wants, one can get the flat potential at higher by introducing the right handed neutrino. For simplicity, we consider the case where one neutrino Yukawa coupling is large. This coupling contributes to the RG running of above the Majarana mass similarly to the top Yukawa coupling. Therefore, balancing the contribution from the scalar DM and the righthanded neutrino, we can obtain the flat potential even above GeV. For example, we get for , , , and . See Appendix C for details.
4 Conclusions
We have obtained the constraints on the DM mass and on the top quark mass in the Higgs portal singlet model, imposing the condition to achieve the Higgs inflation above the cutoff [41]. We can further fix the DM mass to be if we impose the flatness of the potential around the string scale , , as is required by the multiple point principle or by the Higgs inflation at the critical point. Both of these regions are testable in the near future by the direct and indirect DM detection experiments and by the precision measurement of the top quark pole mass.
We emphasize that the idea of the Higgs inflation above cutoff uses the fact the Higgs quartic coupling and its beta function become very close to zero around the string scale . Therefore, if the relation between the DM and top masses is confirmed, it suggests that the cutoff of the SM is around .^{6}^{6}6 See e.g. Ref. [78, 79, 80] for an attempt along this line.
This framework does not predict a particular value of the spectral index , but gives the tensortoscalar ratio . This prediction is consistent to the Bmode polarization detection by the BICEP2 experiment. It would be interesting to construct a model that makes the Higgs potential above the cutoff to be flat in field theory and in string theory [81].
Note added
Acknowledgement
We thank Seong Chan Park for useful discussions and Yukinari Sumino for helpful comment. This work is in part supported by the GrantinAid for Scientific Research Nos. 22540277 (HK), 23104009, 20244028, and 23740192 (KO). The work of Y. H. is supported by a GrantinAid for Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Fellows No.251107.
Appendix A Renormalization group equations
We summarize the twoloop RGEs:^{7}^{7}7 We calculate twoloop RGEs by using the results of Refs. [84, 85, 86]. After completion, there appeared Ref. [87] which also computes the twoloop RGEs. By putting and in our and their results, respectively, RGEs become the same.
(28) 
where and is the number of the real singlet scalar. The model we considered in the paper is . The general case corresponds to the following replacement in the Lagrangian (1),
(29) 
When we include right handed neutrino, the oneloop RGEs are given by
(30) 
The oneloop bare mass is
(31)  
(32) 
Appendix B Concrete potential above cutoff
Here we show some examples of the concrete potential above cutoff.

In Ref. [41], we have shown the result for the log potential as a concrete example. Indeed, the ColemanWeinberg potential in the cutoff theory leads to a log potential in the region where field value exceeds the cutoff; see Appendix B of Ref. [41]. That is, above we get
(33) This potential predicts and , which requires further modification because of the recent tensor mode result from the BICEP2 experiment [44].

In the spirit of Ref. [41], we can make use of the flat Higgs potential, and force it to be further flat above by introducing the nonminimal coupling between the Higgs and Ricci scalar. While the original version of the Higgs inflation [88] predicts too small value of to be consistent with the BICEP2 result, the abovestated strategy leads to sufficiently large [42, 43]; see also [89, 90, 91, 92].

If we get above the cutoff
(34) with being a coefficient, then we obtain the chaotic inflation with the quadratic potential [93]. This is known to be consistent to the current observation of and [94, 44]. This kind of quadratic potential is realized if the bare mass takes a tiny nonzero value after integrating out the heavy modes, while all other terms are much suppressed. More precisely, the ColemanWeinberg potential in the bare perturbation theory is given by
(35) where is the number of degrees of freedom, is the coupling to the Higgs, and is the bare Higgs self coupling. If the top mass is 170 to 171, and become almost zero for the cutoff scale around [8]. Further it is possible that is very small but nonzero and that . Then Higgs quadratic term dominates the bare potential (35). The asymptotic form of the potential becomes
(36) and we obtain quadratic chaotic inflation.
Appendix C Righthanded neutrino
Let us examine the constraint on the Higgs portal scalar model when we add the right handed neutrinos, in order to achieve the flat potential above and/or with a heavier top mass . For simplicity, we add only one generation of neutrino:
(37) 
Then the beta functions for , and are modified at the oneloop level:
(38) 
The beta function for reads
(39) 
The modification due to the inclusion of the neutrino is in effect above the right handed Majorana mass scale, . We see that contribute negatively to the RG running of , similarly to . This effect is opposite to the inclusion of the scalar DM. Balancing these two, we can get the flat potential above and/or with a heavier top mass , as is plotted in Fig. 9. Here we have chosen the Yukawa such that the neutrino mass becomes 0.1 eV. That is, we imposed
(40) 
at the scale . We see from Fig. 9 that rather large can realize the flat potential. This value of corresponds to the dark matter mass 820 GeV.
References
 [1] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012), 1–29, 1207.7214.
 [2] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012), 30–61, 1207.7235.
 [3] M. Holthausen, K. S. Lim, and M. Lindner, Planck scale Boundary Conditions and the Higgs Mass, JHEP 1202 (2012), 037, 1112.2415.
 [4] F. Bezrukov, M. Y. Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Shaposhnikov, Higgs Boson Mass and New Physics, JHEP 1210 (2012), 140, 1205.2893.
 [5] G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. EliasMiro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, et al., Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, JHEP 1208 (2012), 098, 1205.6497.
 [6] S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi, and S. Moch, The top quark and Higgs boson masses and the stability of the electroweak vacuum, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012), 214–219, 1207.0980.
 [7] I. Masina, The Higgs boson and Top quark masses as tests of Electroweak Vacuum Stability, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013), 053001, 1209.0393.
 [8] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K.y. Oda, Bare Higgs mass at Planck scale, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013), no. 5, 053009, 1210.2538.
 [9] F. Jegerlehner, The Standard model as a lowenergy effective theory: what is triggering the Higgs mechanism?, (2013), 1304.7813.
 [10] D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, et al., Investigating the nearcriticality of the Higgs boson, JHEP 1312 (2013), 089, 1307.3536.
 [11] F. Jegerlehner, The hierarchy problem of the electroweak Standard Model revisited, (2013), 1305.6652.
 [12] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K.y. Oda, Bare Higgs mass and potential at ultraviolet cutoff, (2013), 1305.7055.
 [13] L. Bian, RGE, the naturalness problem and the understanding of the Higgs mass term, (2013), 1308.2783.
 [14] D. Jones, The quadratic divergence in the Higgs mass revisited, Phys.Rev. D88 (2013), 098301, 1309.7335.
 [15] M. Alsarhi, I. Jack, and D. Jones, Quadratic divergences in gauge theories, Z.Phys. C55 (1992), 283–288.
 [16] C. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Standard model criticality prediction: Top mass 173 + 5GeV and Higgs mass 135 + 9GeV, Phys.Lett. B368 (1996), 96–102, hepph/9511371.
 [17] C. Froggatt, H. B. Nielsen, and Y. Takanishi, Standard model Higgs boson mass from borderline metastability of the vacuum, Phys.Rev. D64 (2001), 113014, hepph/0104161.
 [18] H. B. Nielsen, PREdicted the Higgs Mass, (2012), 94–126, 1212.5716.
 [19] M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich, Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass, Phys.Lett. B683 (2010), 196–200, 0912.0208.
 [20] K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, Effective action, conformal anomaly and the issue of quadratic divergences, Phys.Lett. B660 (2008), 260–266, 0710.2840.
 [21] H. Aoki and S. Iso, Revisiting the Naturalness Problem – Who is afraid of quadratic divergences? –, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012), 013001, 1201.0857.
 [22] V. V. Khoze, C. McCabe, and G. Ro, Higgs vacuum stability from the dark matter portal, (2014), 1403.4953.
 [23] A. Kobakhidze and K. L. McDonald, Comments on the Hierarchy Problem in Effective Theories, (2014), 1404.5823.
 [24] H. Kawai and T. Okada, Solving the Naturalness Problem by Baby Universes in the Lorentzian Multiverse, Prog.Theor.Phys. 127 (2012), 689–721, 1110.2303.
 [25] H. Kawai, Low energy effective action of quantum gravity and the naturalness problem, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A28 (2013), 1340001.
 [26] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K. Kawana, Evidence of the Big Fix, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A29 (2014), no. 17, 1450099, 1405.1310.
 [27] K. Kawana, Reconsideration of the Coleman’s Baby Universe, (2014), 1405.2743.
 [28] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K. Kawana, Weak Scale From the Maximum Entropy Principle, (2014), 1409.6508.
 [29] Y. Kawamura, Naturalness, Conformal Symmetry and Duality, PTEP 2013 (2013), no. 11, 113B04, 1308.5069.
 [30] Y. Kawamura, Gauge hierarchy problem, supersymmetry and fermionic symmetry, (2013), 1311.2365.
 [31] K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, Conformal Symmetry and the Standard Model, Phys.Lett. B648 (2007), 312–317, hepth/0612165.
 [32] R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, K. L. McDonald, and R. R. Volkas, A Solution to the hierarchy problem from an almost decoupled hidden sector within a classically scale invariant theory, Phys.Rev. D77 (2008), 035006, 0709.2750.
 [33] S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, Classically conformal extended Standard Model, Phys.Lett. B676 (2009), 81–87, 0902.4050.
 [34] S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, The minimal model naturally realized at TeV scale, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009), 115007, 0909.0128.
 [35] S. Iso and Y. Orikasa, TeV Scale BL model with a flat Higgs potential at the Planck scale  in view of the hierarchy problem , PTEP 2013 (2013), 023B08, 1210.2848.
 [36] N. Haba, K. Kaneta, and R. Takahashi, Planck scale boundary conditions in the standard model with singlet scalar dark matter, (2013), 1312.2089.
 [37] M. Hashimoto, S. Iso, and Y. Orikasa, Radiative Symmetry Breaking from Flat Potential in various U(1)’ models, (2014), 1401.5944.
 [38] P. H. Chankowski, A. Lewandowski, K. A. Meissner, and H. Nicolai, Softly broken conformal symmetry and the stability of the electroweak scale, (2014), 1404.0548.
 [39] K. Kawana, The Multiple Point Principle of the Standard Model with Scalar Singlet Dark Matter and Right Handed Neutrinos, (2014), 1411.2097.
 [40] K. Kawana, Criticality and Inflation of the Gauged BL Model, (2015), 1501.04482.
 [41] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K.y. Oda, Minimal Higgs inflation, PTEP 2014 (2014), 023B02, 1308.6651.
 [42] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, K.y. Oda, and S. C. Park, Higgs inflation still alive, Phys.Rev.Lett. 112 (2014), 241301, 1403.5043.
 [43] F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Higgs inflation at the critical point, (2014), 1403.6078.
 [44] BICEP2 Collaboration, P. Ade et al., BICEP2 I: Detection Of Bmode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales, (2014), 1403.3985.
 [45] K. Kamada, T. Kobayashi, T. Kunimitsu, M. Yamaguchi, and J. Yokoyama, Graceful exit from Higgs Ginflation, Phys.Rev. D88 (2013), 123518, 1309.7410.
 [46] F. Jegerlehner, Higgs inflation and the cosmological constant, (2014), 1402.3738.
 [47] C. Burgess, S. P. Patil, and M. Trott, On the Predictiveness of SingleField Inflationary Models, (2014), 1402.1476.
 [48] H. M. Lee, Selfcomplete chaotic inflation, (2014), 1403.5602.
 [49] Y. Gong, The challenge for single field inflation with BICEP2 result, (2014), 1403.5716.
 [50] N. Okada, V. N. Senoguz, and Q. Shafi, Simple Inflationary Models in Light of BICEP2: an Update, (2014), 1403.6403.
 [51] M. Fairbairn, P. Grothaus, and R. Hogan, The Problem with False Vacuum Higgs Inflation, (2014), 1403.7483.
 [52] P. Di Bari, S. F. King, C. Luhn, A. Merle, and A. SchmidtMay, Radiative Inflation and Dark Energy RIDEs Again after BICEP2, (2014), 1404.0009.
 [53] I. Oda and T. Tomoyose, Quadratic Chaotic Inflation from Higgs Inflation, (2014), 1404.1538.
 [54] C. Cheng, Q.G. Huang, and W. Zhao, Constraints on the extensions to the base CDM model from BICEP2, Planck and WMAP, (2014), 1404.3467.
 [55] K. Enqvist, S. Nurmi, and S. Rusak, NonAbelian dynamics in the resonant decay of the Higgs after inflation, (2014), 1404.3631.
 [56] K. Enqvist, T. Meriniemi, and S. Nurmi, Higgs Dynamics during Inflation, (2014), 1404.3699.
 [57] C.J. Feng and X.Z. Li, Is Cosmological Constant Needed in Higgs Inflation?, (2014), 1404.3817.
 [58] K. Bamba, G. Cognola, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Zerbini, Oneloop Modified Gravity in de Sitter Universe, Quantum Corrected Inflation, and its Confrontation with the Planck Result, (2014), 1404.4311.
 [59] J. Ren, Z.Z. Xianyu, and H.J. He, Higgs Gravitational Interactions, Weak Boson Scattering, and Higgs Inflation in Jordan and Einstein Frames, (2014), 1404.4627.
 [60] S. Bartrum, M. BasteroGil, A. Berera, R. Cerezo, R. O. Ramos, et al., The importance of being warm (during inflation), Phys.Lett. B732 (2014), 116–121, 1307.5868.
 [61] M. BasteroGil, A. Berera, I. G. Moss, and R. O. Ramos, Cosmological fluctuations of a random field and radiation fluid, JCAP 1405 (2014), 004, 1401.1149.
 [62] M. BasteroGil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos, and J. G. Rosa, Observational implications of mattergenesis during inflation, (2014), 1404.4976.
 [63] Y. Hosotani, Stability of Scalar Fields in Curved Space, Phys.Rev. D32 (1985), 1949.
 [64] G. Chakravarty, S. Mohanty, and N. K. Singh, Higgs Inflation in Theory, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D23 (2014), no. 4, 1450029, 1303.3870.
 [65] V. Silveira and A. Zee, SCALAR PHANTOMS, Phys.Lett. B161 (1985), 136.
 [66] J. McDonald, Gauge singlet scalars as cold dark matter, Phys.Rev. D50 (1994), 3637–3649, hepph/0702143.
 [67] C. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, The Minimal model of nonbaryonic dark matter: A Singlet scalar, Nucl.Phys. B619 (2001), 709–728, hepph/0011335.
 [68] H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, T. Li, and H. Murayama, The New minimal standard model, Phys.Lett. B609 (2005), 117–123, hepph/0405097.
 [69] B. Patt and F. Wilczek, Higgsfield portal into hidden sectors, (2006), hepph/0605188.
 [70] B. Grzadkowski and J. Wudka, Pragmatic approach to the little hierarchy problem: the case for Dark Matter and neutrino physics, Phys.Rev.Lett. 103 (2009), 091802, 0902.0628.
 [71] A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, and J. Wudka, MultiScalarSinglet Extension of the Standard Model  the Case for Dark Matter and an Invisible Higgs Boson, JHEP 1204 (2012), 006, 1112.2582.
 [72] J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott, and C. Weniger, Update on scalar singlet dark matter, Phys.Rev. D88 (2013), 055025, 1306.4710.
 [73] P. Ko and W.I. Park, Higgsportal assisted Higgs inflation in light of BICEP2, (2014), 1405.1635.
 [74] D0 Collaborations, T. ATLAS, CDF, and CMS, First combination of Tevatron and LHC measurements of the topquark mass, (2014), 1403.4427.
 [75] T. Horiguchi, A. Ishikawa, T. Suehara, K. Fujii, Y. Sumino, et al., Study of top quark pair production near threshold at the ILC, (2013), 1310.0563.
 [76] XENON1T collaboration, E. Aprile, The XENON1T Dark Matter Search Experiment, (2012), 1206.6288.
 [77] LUX Collaboration, D. Akerib et al., First results from the LUX dark matter experiment at the Sanford Underground Research Facility, (2013), 1310.8214.
 [78] S. Mizoguchi, Ftheory Family Unification, (2014), 1403.7066.
 [79] Y. Hamada, T. Kobayashi, and S. Uemura, Flavor structure in Dbrane models: Majorana neutrino masses, JHEP 1405 (2014), 116, 1402.2052.
 [80] Y. Hamada, T. Kobayashi, and S. Uemura, Standard Modellike Dbrane models and gauge couplings, (2014), 1409.2740.
 [81] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K.y. Oda, Eternal Higgs inflation and cosmological constant problem, (2015), 1501.04455.
 [82] N. Haba and R. Takahashi, Higgs inflation with singlet scalar dark matter and righthanded neutrino in the light of BICEP2, (2014), 1404.4737.
 [83] P. Channuie and K. Karwan, Large tensortoscalar ratio from Composite Inflation, (2014), 1404.5879.
 [84] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization, Nucl.Phys. B222 (1983), 83.
 [85] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 2. Yukawa Couplings, Nucl.Phys. B236 (1984), 221.
 [86] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 3. Scalar Quartic Couplings, Nucl.Phys. B249 (1985), 70.
 [87] N. Haba, H. Ishida, and R. Takahashi, Higgs inflation and Higgs portal dark matter with righthanded neutrinos, (2014), 1405.5738.
 [88] F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton, Phys.Lett. B659 (2008), 703–706, 0710.3755.
 [89] K. Allison, Higgs xiinflation for the 125126 GeV Higgs: a twoloop analysis, JHEP 1402 (2014), 040, 1306.6931.
 [90] J. L. Cook, L. M. Krauss, A. J. Long, and S. Sabharwal, Is Higgs Inflation Dead?, (2014), 1403.4971.
 [91] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, K.y. Oda, and S. C. Park, Higgs inflation from Standard Model criticality, (2014), 1408.4864.
 [92] Y. Hamada, K.y. Oda, and F. Takahashi, Topological Higgs inflation: The origin of the Standard Model criticality, Phys.Rev. D90 (2014), 097301, 1408.5556.
 [93] A. D. Linde, Chaotic Inflation, Phys.Lett. B129 (1983), 177–181.
 [94] Planck Collaboration, P. Ade et al., Planck 2013 results. XXII. Constraints on inflation, (2013), 1303.5082.